Parma Industries, Inc And Wolverine Metal Special-Ties, Inc ,

90 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Parma Industries, Inc and Wolverine Metal Special- ties, Inc, a single employer/joint employer and International Union, United Automobile, Aero- space & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), Local 62 Jackson Industries, Inc , and L R P D Inc , Joint Employers and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Imple ment Workers of America (UAW), Local 62 Cases 7-CA-23851, 7-CA-24243, and 7-CA- 24021 December 30, 1988 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On September 24, 1986, Administrative Law Judge George F Mclnerny issued the attached de cision All Respondents filed exceptions and sup- porting briefs, the General Counsel filed cross-ex ceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party and the General Counsel filed reply briefs The National Labor Relations Board has delegat ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and had decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, i and conclusions as modified, to modify his remedy, 2 and to modify his recommended Order 3 1 We affirm and adopt the judge's findings that Respondents Parma and Wolverine, a single em- ployer, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by nu merous threats of plant closure and coercive inter- rogations, encouraging employee surveillance of union activities, and issuing a general disciplinary warning before the Union's election victory and thereafter encouraging employees to abandon their bargaining representative, Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by closing Parma's plant and selling its assets with out notifying or bargaining with the Union, and I The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge s credibility find rags The Board s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products 91 NLRB 544 (1950) enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings 2 In accordance with our decision in New Horizons for the Retarded 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) interest on and after January 1 1987 shall be computed at the short term Federal rate for the underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to 26 US C § 6621 Interest on amounts accrued prior to January 1 1987 (the effective date of the 1986 amendment to 26 U S C § 6621) shall be computed in accordance with Florida Steel Corp 231 NLRB 651 (1977) 3 The judge included a visitatorial clause in his recommended Order For the reasons set forth in Cherokee Marine Terminal 287 NLRB 1080 (1988) we find it unnecessary and shall delete it from our Order Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) by closing that plant,4 selling its assets, and terminating all the Parma unit employees in retaliation for their voting in the Union, and to avoid bargaining with it We agree with the judge's 8(a)(5) finding for two independent reasons Insofar as the closing and sale of assets was predicated predominantly on labor cost considerations, it was a mandatory subject of bargaining under any of the views expressed in Otis Elevator Co, 269 NLRB 891 (1984) Insofar as these actions were taken for discriminatory reasons, I e , to retaliate against the employees for voting for the Union, the actions could not constitute a le gitimate entrepreneurial decision See Strawsine Mfg Co, 280 NLRB 553 (1986) 5 4 There is no exception to the judge s failure to order the discnmma tonly closed Parma plant reopened In view of the particular circum stances of this case and the other remedies ordered we shall not address that issue sua sponte s Our colleague has suggested that a question exists whether our find mg of an 8(a)(3) violation here might somehow be inconsistent with the Supreme Court s decision in Textile Workers v Darlington Mfg Co 380 US 263 (1965) and the Boards decision in Bruce Duncan Co 233 NLRB 1243 (1977) We find nothing in those decisions to preclude our finding that the closing and sale violated Sec 8(a)(3) given (I) the sub stantial identity of ownership and management between Parma and Wol venue (2) Wolverines relationship to the employing entity (Jackson) that carried on Parma s operations after the sale of assets and (3) the judge s finding supported by the record that the word was passed to former Parma employees that supporters of the Union were not wanted at Jack son In other words the closing of Parma which with Wolverine con stituted a single employer was calculated in part to suppress union activi ty in the successor operation that would continue to make auto parts to fulfill Wolverine s production orders In finding that Respondents Parma and Wolverine violated Sec 8(a)(5) by closing the Parma plant selling the assets and terminating the Parma employees without notifying or bargaim-ig with the Union Member Cra craft relies solely on the second of the two independent reasons set forth above Absent discriminatory motivation Member Cracraft would not find that an employers decision to close part of its business or sell assets is a mandatory subject of bargaining First National Maintenance Corp v NLRB 452 U S 666 (1981) (partial closing) General Motors Corp 191 NLRB 951 (1971) petition for review denied sub nom Auto Workers Local 864 v NLRB 470 F 2d 422 (D C Cir 1972) (sale) Member Cracraft specifically disagrees with her colleagues claim that under any of the views expressed in Otis Elevator Co 269 NLRB 891 (1984) an employer must bargain over partial closing and sale decisions predicated predominantly on labor cost considerations Member Cra craft points out that in fn 8 of Member Denris Otis concurrence Member Dennis clearly and unequivocably stated that if the matter pre sensed is an economically motivated partial closing or a sale no decision bargaining is required Member Cracraft further observes that apart from the misplaced reliance on Otis her colleagues have cited no cases to support their novel position Member Cracraft finds it unnecessary to pass on the issue of whether the conduct of Respondents Parma and Wolverine also violated Sec 8(a)(3) as the finding of such an additional violation would not materially affect the remedy Thus Member Cracraft does not reach the question of whether her colleagues finding of an 8(a)(3) discriminatory partial clos mg can be reconciled with Textile Workers Union of America v Darlington Mfg Co 380 US 263 (1965) and Bruce Duncan Co 233 NLRB 1243 (1977) Member Cracraft notes that while her colleagues suggest above that there is something sinister in the relationship between Respondents Parma and Wolverine on the one hand and Respondent Jackson on the other in fact her colleagues conclude elsewhere in this decision that Re spondent Jackson is a bona fide successor to Respondents Parma and Wolverine 292 NLRB No 9 PARMA INDUSTRIES 91 2 Contrary to the judge's dismissal of the com- plaint allegations, we find merit in the General Counsel's contention that a scheduled hourly wage increase was unlawfully withheld from Parma em- ployees in retaliation for their union activity 6 It is undisputed that Parma employees regularly received semiannual pay raises in January and June, and that prior to the Union's campaign in May 1984, Plant Superintendent Beals polled em- ployee members of the management-employee committee about what they thought would be a fair hourly increase The employee members gener ally agreed on 30 cent-an-hour increase, and Beals said, "I am sure that Dick Dailey Sr will go along with that " However, shortly after the union orga- nizing commenced, Beals and Supervisor Sutton in- formed some of the employees that there would be no raises based on Dailey's belief that because of the union activity it might be considered a bribe, and employee Arlo England testified that Plant Manager Roger Farmer told him "that he heard they was asking for 30 cents raise and they would of been glad to give it to them if they hadn't start ed the business about the Union " The judge found that the foregoing discussions between Beals and committee members about a pay raise did not amount to a promise by management to give a raise, and thus the conduct of Beals, Sutton, and Farmer in telling employees that they would not receive a raise did not constitute a denial of a pay raise in retaliation for the employees' union activi- ty We agree with the judge that failure to grant the 30-cent wage increase did not violate the Act However, we find, in disagreement with the judge, that the failure to grant the regularly scheduled semiannual pay raise in June 1984 violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act Under Board law, when an employer during an organizing campaign departs from its usual practice of granting or withholding benefits, we may infer an intent to influence the upcoming election, absent an explanation of a lawful reason for the depar lure 7 6 The General Counsel excepts to the judge s failure to find additional 8(a)(1) violations We find it unnecessary to pass on the other 8(a)(1) vio lations urged by the General Counsel because they are cumulative and encompassed by the remedy The General Counsel further excepts to the judge s refusal to allow amendment of the complaint by the addition of an 8(a)(5) allegation based on Parma s failure to bargain about the effects of its plant closing which the General Counsel contends was voluntarily litigated by Re spondent Parma We find it unnecessary to pass on whether the judge s failure to allow this amendment of the complaint was proper in light of our findings and the remedy requiring all the Respondents to bargain with the Union and to make whole all the Parma employees who were adversely affected by the closing 7 See Village Thrift Store 272 NLRB 572 (1983) The good-faith postponement of benefit increases otherwise due is lawful when the employer is care- ful to explain that its purpose is to avoid the ap pearance of interference with employees ' organiza tional efforts 8 The employer, however, may not seek to shift to the union the onus for the post ponement of such increases Where as here, the evidence reveals a practice of granting hourly in creases of 5 to 15 cents in June or July, the Re- spondent's explanation that it would not give the previously discussed 30 cent-an-hour raise because it might be considered a bribe does not, in the full context of this case , establish that the Respondent's withholding of the increase was in good faith and lawful Rather, we find from evidence of the nu merous plant closure threats and other forms of misconduct and particularly the above-quoted remark by Vice President Farmer to employee England explicitly placing the onus on the Union for the denial of the increase, that the Respondent withheld the regular semiannual increase from the employees in retaliation for their union activity We therefore find that the withholding of the es- tablished pay raise because of the Union violated Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1), and that the supervisors' announcements of that decision to the employees interfered with the employees' Section 7 rights and constituted violations of Section 8(a)(1) 9 3 We find, in agreement with the judge 's analy- sis, that Respondents Jackson and L R P D are joint employers, 10 and that they succeeded to Parma's bargaining obligation The judge's succes- sorship finding is based first on evidence that Jackson/L R P D used Parma 's former machinery, work methods, supervision, and some former em ployees in the production of the same auto parts for the same customer, Wolverine 11 In addition, he found that Jackson/L R P D engaged in a dis 8 See Village Thrift Store above Gerkin Co 279 NLRB 1012 (1986) Cf Uarco Inc 169 NLRB 1153 (1968) e We amend the judge s recommended remedy to add a requirement that all the Parma employees be made whole for losses of earnings suf fered as a result of the discriminatory withholding of their scheduled semiannual general hourly pay raises The exact sums owing with inter est shall be determined in compliance and computed to the extent appro pnate as prescribed in Ogle Protection Service 183 NLRB 682 (1970) 10 Jackson a corporation formed for the purpose of purchasing and operating Parma s business entered into an agreement with L R P D for L R P D to hire Jackson s work force for lease to Jackson The judge concluded from the face of that agreement that both Jackson and L R P D exercise authority over the employees wages hours and work ing conditions We affirm this conclusion and find as alleged that Jack son and L R P D are joint employers In doing so we conclude that the judge s reference to these two entities as a single employer was inadvert ent i i The judge noted evidence that Parma was founded to manufacture and assemble parts for Wolverine at lower wages (relative to those of Wolverine employees) and that such work accounted for 85 to 95 per cent of Parma s total production 92 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD criminatory plan 12 to avoid hiring any former Parma employees who were identified as union members or supporters 11 Jackson/L R P D argue in exceptions before the Board that the judge's successorship finding is dis- proved by the evidence that shows that only 4 of the 14 union card signers 14 even attempted to apply for work, and by that time a full employee complement had already been hired 15 We adopt the judge's successorship finding for the additional reasons set forth below, based on credited evidence that reveals that the failure by former Parma em- ployees to make timely applications for employ- ment was caused by the purposeful concealment and a resulting "climate of futility" 16 attributable to Jackson/L R P D Significantly, at the time of the September 14 Parma plant closing announcement, the fact of Jackson's imminent purchase and removal of Parma's machinery and hiring of workers to per- form identical jobs was withheld from the employ- ees, who were merely informed that they were being terminated because business conditions "beyond our control" had forced the closing At the same time, employment offers were being ex- tended surreptitiously, on behalf of Jackson/- L R P D, solely to Parma supervisors and employ ees other than those identified as union support- ers 17 Those efforts to conceal employment oppor tunities from the prounion employees were furth- ered by the agreement under which L R P D was to hire and lease employees to Jackson, and by L R P D 's decision to seek further referrals only 12 The judge wholly discredited L R P D President Chambers testi mony regarding his practice of using the Michigan Employment Secu my Commission as the primary source of experienced employees The judge concluded that the same discriminatory reasons underlying the sale of Parma entered into the hiring decisions of Jackson/L R P D 11 The Union won the election conducted among the Parma employees by a vote of 13 to 4 Only the following four eligible voters in the Parma election were employed by Jackson/L R P D Les Clark who acted as Parma s election observer and wore a Parma No 1 T shirt on the day of the election Dan Walling Parma s least experienced worker who also wore a pro Company T shirt to the election Ken Smith who had re ceived a final disciplinary warning from Parma for smashing a die and Arlo England an acknowledged opponent of the Union who had been solicited by Parma management to conduct surveillance of his coworkers union activities and sympathies 14 They are Roger Cole Dave Furlong Jay Meilberg Dan Norman Bruce Pace David Prater Ellis Prater Ervin Prater Granville Prater Pearl Prater Mark Ryckman Kevin Templeton Thomas Templeton and Raynor Walker 15 The evidence shows that Jackson/L R P D employed 12 production employees by the end of its first week and a total complement of 16 on October 29 1984 16 See State Distributing Co 282 NLRB 1048 (1987) 17 Jackson President Puckey ordered George Chambers of L R P D to hire Parma Plant Manager Roger Farmer and Plant Superintendent Robert Beals Chambers in turn accepted Beals recommendations to hire Supervisor Sutton Inspector and part time Acting Supervisor John Gage (who was found not eligible to vote in the election) and rank and file employees Clark Walling Smith and England from the MESC office in Jackson, Michigan 18 These concealment efforts foreclosed some Parma employees from making timely application to Jackson/L R P D for employment 19 Furthermore, the belated discovery by the former Parma employees of the attempts to dis- guise the continuance of Parma's operations dem onstrated to them the futility of applying for em ployment For example, following the Parma shut down announcement, Dan Norman departed the premises as instructed, but returned for some per- sonal belongings in time to see coworkers Gage, Clark, and Smith entering Parma's executive of fices Norman also observed that Smith was jump- ing up "in the air and swinging his arms just like he was tickled to death" A few days later, Norman, accompanied by Bruce Pace and Ellis Prater, followed former Plant Manager Farmer to work (at Jackson's new location) and noticed co- worker Walling and parked vehicles belonging to Clark and Smith On about the same date, Jackson Supervisor Louis Sutton resolved any doubts about the new company by telling his brother in-law, Ellis Prater, in response to the latter's inquiring about a job at Jackson, "No, they won't have Union workers there " Furthermore, Bruce Pace testified that about September 24 he visited the Jackson plant and saw Farmer, Clark, Smith, and Walling performing work for Wolverine Pace said he spoke to Supervisor Beals on that occasion but did not ask him for a job because he had just been fired by these same people and figured "they didn't want us in there no more " Subsequently, on November 5 Ellis Prater and Roger Cole applied for work at L R P D and were told to go to the MESC office in Jackson At that office, the clerk they spoke with indicated no rec- ognition of L R P D Tom and Kevin Templeton also tried to apply for work at L R P D on No vember 5, but gave up and left after waiting for an hour and a half without speaking to anyone with hiring authority Corroborative testimony by Norman, Pace, Cole, and Ellis Prater reveals that they shared informa tion about the employment situation with one an- other and with other (unnamed) bargaining unit members Moreover, the other four Parma employ ees named Prater (David, Ervin, Granville, and Pearl), who are related to Ellis and to Jackson Su- pervisors Beals and Sutton, were undoubtedly ad vised of the true nature of Jackson's operations 20 18 The record indicates that some Parma employees registered with MESC offices other than the one located in Jackson Michigan 19 See American Stevedoring Co 280 NLRB 756 (1986) 20 Beals acknowledged visiting his wife s uncles Ervin and Granville on the day before the election to solicit their votes against the Union PARMA INDUSTRIES 93 In the circumstances of this case, including the size of the Parma community 21 and the small number of employees involved, we find, as did the judge, that all 14 prounion employees learned, sooner or later, of the disparate treatment accorded them, and thereupon realized the futility of seeking employment with Jackson/L R P D In light of the foregoing, we conclude that absent the Respond- ents' misconduct, there is reason to believe there would have been a substantial union majority in the new employee complement And, as any uncertain ty about whether a majority of union supporters would have applied and been hired under lawful hiring practices is caused by the Respondents' dis- criminatory conduct, we resolve that uncertainty against the Respondents 22 Because we have found that Jackson/L R P D 's 8(a)(3) violations have prevented the Union from achieving majority status, and as the other elements of successorship are present, we accordingly con- clude that Jackson/L R P D are successors to Parma, and that they also violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by declining the Union's demands for rec ognition 23 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that A The Respondent, Parma Industries, Inc, Parma, Michigan, and Wolverine Metal Specialties, Inc, Jackson, Michigan, a single employer, its offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Interrogating, coercing, or threatening its em ployees because of their activities on behalf of the International Union, United Automobile, Aero space & Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer- ica (UAW), Local 62, the Union, or any other labor organization (b) Unlawfully announcing the withholding of, and unlawfully withholding, general hourly wage increases or any other benefit regularly granted to employees (c) Discontinuing its operations at any location in retaliation for their employees activities on behalf of the Union or any other labor organization (d) Terminating any of its employees because of these employees' activities on behalf of the Union or any other labor organization 21 Member Cracraft does not rely on the size of the Parma community or any familial relationship of employees in finding dissemination of infor mation about the employment situation 22 See State Distributing Co supra 23 We find merit in the General Counsels exceptions to the judges failure to find that the Union on October 29 1984 made separate written demands for recognition on Jackson and L R P D (e) Refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union concerning its decision to close the Parma plant (f) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exer cise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action neces sary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Recognize and, on request, bargain collec tively with the Union as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit described below All full time and regular production and main- tenance employees, including truck drivers, employed (or formerly employed) by Parma and Wolverine at their Parma, Michigan loca tion, or by Jackson and L R P D at their Jack- son, Michigan location, but excluding all office clerical employees, engineering employees, technical employees, managerial employees, quality control employees, guards and supervi- sors as defined in the Act (b) Make whole all the employees at the Parma location who were terminated on September 14, 1984, and not rehired at the Jackson location, for any loss of earnings they may have suffered as the result of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the judge's decision (c) Make whole all employees in the above-de scribed bargaining unit whose scheduled semiannu- al wage increases were withheld for discriminatory reasons (d) Post at their Parma and Jackson, Michigan locations, copies of the attached notice marked `Appendix A '24 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Respondents authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondents immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are custom arily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to ensure that the notices are not al- tered, defaced, or covered by any other material (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondents have taken to comply 24 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order of the Nation al Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board 94 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B The Respondents, Jackson Industries, Inc, and L R P D Inc, Jackson, Michigan, joint em- ployers, their officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall I Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to hire employees because of these employees' activities on behalf of the Union or any other labor organization (b) Refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union in good faith concerning wages, hours, and working conditions for their bargaining unit em ployees (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Sec tion 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action neces sary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Recognize and, on request, bargain collec tively with the Union as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit described below All full time and regular production and main tenance employees, including truck drivers, employed (or formerly employed) by Parma and Wolverine at their Parma, Michigan loca- tion, or by Jackson and L R P D at their Jack- son, Michigan location, but excluding all office clerical employees, engineering employees, technical employees, managerial employees, quality control employees, guards and supervi- sors as defined in the Act (b) Make whole all of the employees at the Parma location who were terminated on September 14, 1984, and not rehired at the Jackson location, for any loss of earnings they may have suffered as the result of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the judge's decision (c) Immediately offer jobs to the employees who formerly worked at Parma and were not employed by Jackson, to substantially equivalent positions at the Jackson location (d) Post at their Jackson, Michigan locations, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B "25 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Respondents' authorized representa- tive, shall be posted by the Respondents immedi ately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu tive days in conspicuous places including all places zs If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order of the Nation al Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board where notices to employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondents have taken to comply APPENDIX A NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights To organize To form, ,loin, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representa tives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or pro tection To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities WE WILL NOT interrogate, coerce, or threaten our employees because of their activities on behalf of International Union, United Automobile, Aero- space and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) Local 62, or any other labor or- ganization WE WILL NOT unlawfully announce that we will withhold, nor will we unlawfully withhold, hourly wage increases or any other benefits that we grant you on a regular basis WE WILL NOT discontinue any of our operations at any location in retaliation for our employees' ac tivities on behalf of the Union or any other labor organization WE WILL NOT terminate any of our employees because of their activities on behalf of the Union or any other labor organization WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain in good faith with the Union concerning our decision to close the Parma plant WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Sec- tion 7 of the Act WE WILL recognize and, on request, bargain col lectively with the Union, in good faith, over our decision to close our Parma, Michigan plant PARMA INDUSTRIES WE WILL make whole all of our employees whose scheduled semiannual wage increases were withheld for discriminatory reasons WE WILL make whole all of our employees who were terminated when we closed our Parma plant for any losses of earnings or benefits suffered by them by reason of our discrimination against them, with interest PARMA INDUSTRIES, INC WOLVERINE METAL SPECIALTIES, INC APPENDIX B NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representa tives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or pro tection To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities WE WILL NOT refuse to hire former employees of Wolverine or Parma because of their activity on behalf of International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), Local 62, or any labor organiza tion WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Sec tion 7 of the Act WE WILL recognize and, on request, bargain col lectively in good faith with the Union concerning wages, hours, and working conditions of our em- ployees at our Jackson, Michigan location WE WILL make whole all former Parma employ ees who were not hired by us because of their ac- tivities on behalf of the Union for any losses of earnings or benefits suffered by them by reason of our discrimination against them, with interest WE WILL immediately offer jobs to the employ- ees, who formerly worked at Parma and were not 95 employed by us, to substantially equivalent post tions at our location JACKSON INDUSTRIES, INC Joseph P Canfield Esq, for the General Counsel George J Brannick Esq, of Jackson, Michigan, for Re spondents Parma Industries Inc and Wolverine Metal Specialties, Inc 1 Robert M Grover Esq (Rosenfeld Grover & Frang P C), of Jackson, Michigan, for Respondents Jackson Indus tries, Inc and L R P D Inc Beverly Tucker Esq Associate General Counsel and Betsy A Engel Esq Associate General Counsel, on the brief International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, of Detroit, Michigan, for the Charging Party DECISION GEORGE F MCINERNY, Administrative Law Judge Based on charges filed on 19 September 19842 in Case 7- CA-23851 by International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer ica, Local 62 (the Union) against Parma Industries, Inc (Parma or Respondent Parma), which charges were amended on 5 October to include as a charged party the name of Jackson Industries (Jackson or Respondent Jack son), the Regional Director for Region 7 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) issued a complaint on 1 November alleging that Parma had violated and con tinued to violate the National Labor Relations Act 29 U S C § 151 et seq (the Act) A timely answer to these allegations was filed by Parma denying the commission of any unfair labor practices On 15 November the Union filed charges in Case 7- CA-2402 against Jackson and also against LRPD [sic] Inc (L R P D or Respondent L R P D ), alleging that Jackson and L R P D as point employers, had commit ted unfair labor practices As a result of this charge the Regional Director issued an order on 28 December con solidating Cases 7-CA-23851 and 7-CA-24021 and amending his prior complaint in Case 7-CA-23851 to in elude additional allegations against Jackson and L R P D Timely answers were filed to this complaint by Jackson LRPD and Parma 3 On 1 February 1985 the Union filed additional charges in Case 7-CA-24243 at this point alleging that Wolver me Metal Specialties, Inc (Wolverine) and Parma were a single employer Thereafter on 27 October 1985 the Re gional Director issued a second order consolidating cases and a second amended complaint, consolidating Case 7- CA-24243 with previously consolidated Cases 7-CA- 23851 and 7-CA-24021 and alleging that Wolverine and Parma were single or joint employers Again answers were timely filed, denying joint/single employer status 1 The name of the Employer was changed by agreement of the parties from Wolverine Metal Industries Inc as appeared in the complaint to Wolverine Metal Specialties Inc 2 All dates are in 1984 unless otherwise specified 3 Motions to serve the Parma position of the complaints from the Jack son L R P D positions were filed and eventually dismissed during 1985 96 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for the Employers named and further denying the com mission of any unfair labor practices Pursuant to notice contained in the second order noted above, a hearing was held before me at Jackson, Michi gan on 6, 7, and 8 November and 2 through 6 December 1985 at which hearing all parties were represented by counsel and all had the opportunity to present testimony and documentary evidence, to examine and cross exam me witnesses, and to argue orally After the conclusion of the hearing, all parties filed briefs, which have been carefully considered On the entire record including my observations of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION The complaint alleges and the answers admit that all the employers-Parma Wolverine, Jackson and L R P D -are engaged in commerce and are employers within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The complaint alleges and the parties agreed that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec tion 2(5) of the Act III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Parma and Wolverine Wolverine has been in business for many years as a contract supplier of stamped metal parts to the automo bile industry According to the testimony of Richard T Dailey Sr president of Wolverine from 1972 until 1984 and still board chairman contracts for parts are awarded by automobile manufacturers on competitive bids submit ted by Wolverine and its competitors The business is most competitive and depends for profitability on keep mg costs at a minimum Dailey estimated the cost of labor in the manufacture of parts as 60 to 80 percent Thus it would seem essential to keep labor costs as low as possible in order to maintain a competitive position It was the cost of labor that led them and their majority stockholders of Wolverine to establish Parma in Decem ber 1963 Dailey testified that Wolverine had never been able to get contracts from Chrysler Corporation for the manufacture of gas tank straps He attributed this to the fact that labor rates in Wolverines Jackson location were too high By moving this operation to the town of Parma a few miles west of Jackson Wolverine could take advantage of lower wage rates and could make the gas tank straps more competitively Parma accordingly was established as a separate corporation but its function was really to serve as a specialized department or divi sion of the Wolverine operation There is no indication in the record here that this rela tionship altered in any way when Dailey took control of Wolverine in 1972 Indeed up to the time it closed on 14 September 1984, Parma continued to make gas tank straps and other automobile parts for Wolverine This constituted according to a former Parma employee Danny Lee Norman over 95 percent of Parma s manu facturing business Small additional jobs were performed for Hayes Albion Corporation and for Westinghouse Both Wolverine and Parma are privately held corpora tions, with all the stock of Wolverine and almost all the stock Parma owned by Richard T Dailey Sr his wife three sons three daughters and one son in law The bulk of the stock in both corporations was owned by Dailey himself with the family members owning much less 4 At Parma a small amount of stock was owned by Roger Farmer, its former vice president and plant manager During the times material the officers of Wolverine were Thomas Way husband of Dailey s eldest daughter, president Mark Dailey, Dailey s son, vice president Gloria Dailey Dailey s wife secretary, and Daniel Dailey another son, treasurer The directors were Rich and T Dailey Sr chairman Mark Dailey, Dan Dailey Gloria Dailey, Richard T Dailey Jr, Kathleen Dailey Way, Mary Beth Dailey Gorski, and Pamela Dailey The stockholders were Dailey Sr, 1096 shares Gloria Dailey 461 shares Dan Dailey, 80 shares, Mark Dailey 78 shares Kathleen and Thomas Way 78 shares, and Pamela Dailey, 50 shares The officers of Parma during the times material were Dailey Sr president Thomas Way, secretary/treasurer and Roger Farmer executive vice president The direc tors were Dailey Sr, Mark and Richard Dailey Jr Thomas Way and Roger Farmer The stockholders during this period were Dailey Sr 342 shares Thomas Way, 15 shares and Farmer 9 shares A block of 110 shares was owned by Wolverine There would then appear to be no question about the absolute control by the Dailey family over both Wolver me and Parma The stockholders the officers and the di rectors are all members of the family with Richard Dailey Sr and Thomas Way being the only sharehold ers directors and officers of both corporations Way was appointed president of Wolverine effective 1 Janu ary 1984 and counsel for Parma and Wolverine argued and continues to argue that Parma and Wolverine having separate labor relations policies, and handled by two different individuals, Way at Wolverine and Richard Dailey Sr at Parma, are in fact separate and independent employers There is no question that Dailey Sr was president and chief executive officer of Parma There is also no ques tion in my mind that Dailey Sr retained the effective control and direction of the policies of Wolverine during the period in question here Despite Dailey s own testi mony which I found not to be entirely credible, the minutes of Wolverines directors meeting of 17 Novem ber 1983 in evidence here show that even after Way s elevation to the presidency Dailey was to continue an active role as Chairman of the Board, and was to train Tom [Way] for the position which will take many months Dailey denied taking part in decisions at Wol verine after his retirement from the presidency, but did admit that he was a consultant and that he spent 30 hours or so a week at Wolverine where he shared the ' At the time Parma closed down Dailey owned 90 percent of its out standing shares At the same time he owned 80 percent of Wolverine s stock PARMA INDUSTRIES 97 presidents office with Way Way admitted that Dailey was consulted about policy matters, and that his own performance was subject to Dailey s oversight and ap proval I find that Richard T Dailey Sr continued after 1 January 1984, and down to the end of that year to have effective control over the policies, in particular the labor relations policies of Wolverine 5 As far as Parma s independence from Wolverine is concerned, the control of Parma s policies by the Dailey family and specifically by Richard Dailey Sr is amply demonstrated in the record here Beyond that I note the fact that 95 percent or so of Parma s work is subcon tracted from Wolverine Dailey testified as to the process of obtaining contracts for the manufacture of parts for the automobile manufacturers The manufacturers pre pare blueprints and specifications for the required parts, and companies such as Wolverine bid on contracts to supply these parts The contracts are awarded to Wol venue not to Parma The latter has no clerical account ing, engineering sales, or marketing functions, all that are performed for it by Wolverine Roger Farmer who was executive vice president and general manager of Parma from February 1983 until the Company closed down on 14 September 1984 testified that he did not know how Parma got its contracts for work from Hayes Albion or any other customers, he did not know how the rates Parma charged its customers were determined, he did not know who set the rates, how much Parma was paid for the work it did how often payments were made, or to whom payments were made he did not know how insurance carriers were selected for employ ees insurance benefits, or even for insurance on Parma s own facilities or what the premiums were or how they were paid and he did not know who paid the utility bills for Parma or even how much those bills totaled Finally, he testified that he was not notified who made the deci lion to sell Parma what the sale price was or even that the business was sold until he came back from a week s vacation on 14 September The evidence shows that all the functions that were going on without Farmer s knowledge and that are the most basic of corporate functions were in fact being handled by people at Wolverine Parma s function, I find was really that of a branch or division of Wolver me Dies and metals were sent to Parma either from Wolverine or at Wolverines direction The parts were stamped and finished at Parma and sent back to Wolver me as a part of Wolverine s contracts 6 I find, then that I believe that the General Counsel has shown through the testimony of both Way and Dailey that the latter had given final approval to the collective bargaining contract at Wolverine that was effective 16 April 1984 even though he did not participate in the actual negotiations There is no need as Respondents seem to believe that the labor relations poli cies of Parma and Wolverine be identical The fact that Parma was estab fished and maintained as a lower wage subsidiary of Wolverine would seem to require at least different wage and benefit structures which was indeed the case This finding is completely consistent with the other facts in evidence which show that Dailey retained control of Wolverine after 1 January 1984 6 What ever that situation might have been prior to February 1983 while Robert Johnson was president of Parma we are concerned only with the facts as they existed at the time the sale of Parma s equipment took place in September 1984 Parma and Wolverine are a single employer, having common management, common control of labor rela tions common ownership, and functional integration Sakrete of Northern California, 137 NLRB 1220 (1962) See also Glover Bottled Gas Corp 275 NLRB 658 (1985) B Union Organization of Parma In 1984 Parma had 19 production workers In late 1983 or early 1984 after some discussion with employ ees, the Company established an employee committee to discuss matters of common interest with management The employee members were Danny Lee Norman, Les Clark, and Roger Cole and the Employer representatives were Roger Farmer, Parma s vice president and general manager, and Supervisor Robert Beals There were sev eral meetings of this group Generally Beals attended as the sole management representative and discussed with the employees matters such as ventilating fans a new lavatory and eventually a pay raise 7 In May, however, the employees became interested in the Union and on 29 May and 1 June a substantial majority of the employees signed cards to be represented by the UAW 8 The union campaign continued through the late spring and summer, and on 7 August the Union won a Board conducted elec tion by a vote of 13 to 4 with 1 challenge The Union was duly certified on 15 August by the Acting Regional Director for Region 7 of the Board No appeals of the election process were filed by any party C Incidents of Restraint and Coercion 1 The promised wage increase There is no dispute in the testimony here that employ ees at Parma usually received pay increases of about 5 cents an hour on a semiannual basis in January and June In the course of the meetings of the management em ployee committee held early in 1984, there was a discus sion about a pay increase According to Danny Lee Norman, the subject came up at one of their meetings and was in fact brought up by Beals who asked Les Clark what he thought would be fair Clark replied that he thought 30 cents would be fair and Beals then asked Roger Cole Roger said 50 cents Norman did not re member if he said anything in this conversation, but he did recall a general agreement on the 30 cents and Beals saying I am sure Dick Dailey Sr will go along with that Roger Cole verified the fact that this meeting had oc curred and quoted Beals as seeing no problem with that and that he would get with Dick and get back to the em ployee committee members Although Norman and Cole were uncommunicative about the date of this meeting, it must have been in May because about 3 weeks later Norman reported that Beals I See sec III C I below 8 There is no question that Parma s management knew about the union activity early on Supervisor Louis Sutton testified that he heard employ ees talking about the Union in the spring and that he reported this to Farmer Beals also confirmed that he heard about the union in the spring and Norman testified that he told Sutton he had signed a card just after 29 May 98 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and Sutton told him there would be no raises because Dailey considered that because of the union activity it might be considered a bribe 9 Another employee Ellis Prater, testified that sometime in June Louis Sutton told him that he would be getting a 30 cent increase in July Prater said that Norman and David Prater were present when this was said but neither employee corroborated this statement Beals did not testify about the pay raise incident but Sutton did admit that he and Beals told the employees that Dailey said that any raise during the Union negoti ations might be considered a bribe In this matter there certainly was discussion about a raise but I do not believe the evidence even though un disputed, shows that Beals Farmer or Dailey ever agreed to any raise According to Norman and Cole, Beals did say he did not think there would be a problem and that it was his opinion that Dailey would approve the raise This does not, in my opinion, equal a promise to give a raise Thus, I do feel that the further action by Beals, Farmer, and Sutton in telling employees that they would not receive a wage increase because of the Union constituted a denial of a pay raise in retaliation for the employees union activity 2 The disciplinary warning Norman testified that about 3 weeks before the elec tion, Beals called all the employees of Parma to the front of the shop and said that he was giving everyone in the shop a verbal warning He said that people were walking around and talking There was not enough production getting out, that he was tired of it and that if he caught anyone talking or walking around or going to the bath room too much or if he even thought they were going to break or sabotage a die, he would fire them, Union or no Union This testimony was corroborated by Bruce Pace who added that Beals had said the talking had to do with the union drive Beals admitted that he had warned employees about talking and neglecting their work He said that he called the people together and told them what the shop s poli cies were He added that the warning must have worked because he did not have to speak to anyone after that In this, as with other incidents in which Beals was in volved I found him less than credible and from my ob servations of Norman and Pace, I found them to be candid and believable witnesses Therefore, I credit these latter two employees in their statements that there was no talking or neglect of work before Beals issued his warning I find that the warning was intended to restrain and coerce the employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 3 Interrogation and threats by supervisors During and after the election campaign the General Counsel alleges various supervisors at Parma threatened 9 According to employee Arlo England Farmer made a similar state ment to him that the plant would be closed if the employees voted for the Union In addition to these incidents there was testimony from several employees about questions from supervisors about their feelings toward the Union Danny Norman testified that at the end of July, while he was on the second shift, Sutton called him into the office and asked him what was going to happen with the election getting close Norman answered that he felt the Union was going to win and the employees were going to be orga nized Sutton then said that if you guys do win the elec tion you are all going to be looking for another job be cause Dick Dailey is not going to put up with no non sense David Lee Prater10 quoted Sutton as saying a number of times after the union activity started that if the Union got in the place would close up, or that if they got a union in Dailey would shut the place up Ellis Prater tes tified that he told Sutton his brother in law that he had s gned a union authorization card about a week after he had signed it on 29 May, and that Sutton had told him that if the Union comes in they d close it down so many times he could not recall the number Sutton did not deny that he made the statements at tributed to him, that Parma would shut dowr if the Union came in He qualified this by testifying that he had said those things, they were his own opinions, and no one else had told him that the plant would shut down if the Union came in i i In addition to the questioning of Danny Norman by Sutton as I have already described there were several other instances of questions by supervisors Ellis Prater testified that his brother in law Sutton began question ing him about who was involved with the Union soon after Ellis told Sutton that he had signed a card Roger Cole testified that about a week before the elec tion, Beals came up to him while he was working and asked him what he thought about the Union Cole re plied that it might be nice if they had some job security at Parma Beals, in turn, pointed to a box that had Wol N,errne s name printed on it He said to Cole that Parma was Wolverine and, as far as anyone was concerned Parma did not exist Arlo England stated that Roger Farmer had told him about a week and a half before the election that he un derstood that England was going to vote against the union England replied that it was so Farmer then told England to talk to other employees to see if he could persuade them to vote against the Union Farmer also asked England to find out if a couple of people were thinking of voting for the Union and to inform Farmer about this 10 Robert Beals is married to David Prater s sister Grandville and Irvin Prater are Beals wife s uncles Pearl Prater is Beals father in law Louis Sutton is married to Ellis Prater s sister and all the Praters are re lated in one way or another to each other t i This may be true but Sutton as the second shift supervisor must have been aware of and I infer and find that he was aware of what Richard Dailey was saying about the future of Parma It is illogical for Sutton to go around saying that the plant would close if he had no know lege of what was going to happen What he said would happen of course did happen PARMA INDUSTRIES 99 Neither Sutton nor Farmer denied these incidents, and Beals general denial of any wrongdoing is neither proba tive nor convincing I credit the testimony of Norman, England and the two Praters-David and Ellis-that the conversations reported by them occurred as they testa feed and I find that the interrogations by Sutton, Beals, and Farmer show a pattern, which in this case, raised concern in the minds of employees with no assurances against reprisal , in fact, accompanied in some instances by threats that the plant would close, thereby tending to restrain and coerce them in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act Blue Flash Express, 109 NLRB 591 (1954) Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984) 12 It is plain the threats to close the plant, as here, solely because of the employees action in choosing a union as their bargaining representative violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act NLRB v Gissel Packing Co, 395 U S 575 (1969) Emerson G M Diesel, 258 NLRB 1275 (1981) The Company likewise violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when Farmer encouraged Arlo England to engage in surveillance of the union activities of other employees Saginaw Furniture Shops v NLRB, 343 F 2d 515 (7th Cir 1965) 4 The preelection speech telephone calls and postelection threats On 6 August, sometime around 2 30 p in , Richard Dailey Sr gave a talk to the employees of Parma assem bled in the plant 13 Danny Lee Norman, Bruce Dean Pace, David Lee Prater, and Roger Cole all were present and testified about the Dailey speech Their testi mony was consistent and mutually corroborative They described Dailey as standing behind a cardboard box, which apparently served as a lectern and running down a brief history of Parma, how the business had started, and how they had made it through a recession-things had been rough but they had pulled through He praised everyone for having done a good job, and remarked that Parma s future looked pretty good He considered every one there like family Then, according to the employee witnesses, Dailey held up a letter and said [T]hen I get this from the Union He threw the letter down and his attitude changed He became angry and said that he had no in tention of letting a third party stick its nose in his buss ness It was the employees decision he continued but if they wanted to continue to work at Parma, they should cast a no vote He alluded to the fact that the dies used at Parma to produce parts belonged to Wolverine and he said that he would pull them out just like that He said, You think you have me over a barrel-but we 12 I believe that the threats and atmosphere of coercion with no legiti mate purpose more than offset the fact that both Norman and Ellis Prater had told management that they had signed union cards There is no indication in this record that Beals or Sutton was aware of who was or was not an avowed union supporter and certainly England was not any kind of supporter of the Union Hunter Douglas 277 NLRB 1179 (1985) 13 There is no question about the time and place of the speech and there is no question that Dailey had a prepared text part of which was written by his counsel and part by himself The question is whether he will see who ends up in the barrel, and reiterated that he had no intention of letting a third party run his busi ness Dailey expressed his thanks to the people who had come to him and told him that they were against the Union, and concluded by saying that Parma s future was in the employees hands, he would move it, he would close it, and/or he would shut it down I have carefully read the prepared text which Dailey testified that he used All or almost all the items men tioned by the employees are in there, the dies, the third party problem, and the struggle to keep Parma going Only the slightest shift in emphasis can make what is lawful in the text into what is unlawful in the extempora neous words of the speaker I had the opportunity to ob serve Dailey closely while he was a witness here, and I found him to be nervous, certainly, but I found him also to be very careful in his answers, and I found his an swers as well as his demeanor to be less than candid 14 Therefore, I do not credit his assertion that he read the text of the 6 August speech, and find, rather that he de parted from the text, emphasizing the threats to pull work out and close the plant, as reported by the credible testimony of four employee witnesses I therefore find that the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) by Dailey s 6 August speech On that same night Beals acting on Dailey s instruc tions, telephoned several employees including Thomas Templeton and Roger Cole, at their homes According to Cole, Beals told him that he did not want to know how Coles was going to vote but that he had talked to Kevin and Tom Templeton, and that he hated to see them lose their car and that he would hate to see Cole give back the keys to his house but no is the way to go on the union matter Beals said that the shop was doing well, and warned Cole not to mess it up with a union He said that Dailey was not going to bargain with a union Beals admitted he had called the Templeton brothers and Cole and also said that he had visited with his wife s uncles Grandville and Ervin Prater on that day before the election He admitted that he had talked about the election with the employees but denied that he had threatened them He pointed out, in his version of the conversations that if there was a strike he could not predict what would happen to the dies because they be longed to Chrysler I credit the version of this incident related by Cole, and I do not credit Beals I cannot, however find any violations as to Thomas Templeton who testified in this hearing, but was not asked about this incident, nor as to Grandville nor Ervin Prater who did not testify at all I thus find a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in Beals threat to Cole that the latter could lose his house if the Union came in and that Dailey would not bargain with the Union As a kind of postscript to these matters that took place during the campaign from late May to 7 August was another incident that occurred about 10 days after the departed from the text and in fact said what several employees recalled 14 For example his turnaround on the question of whether he ever he said talked to employees about their preference for the Union 100 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD election, on 19 or 20 August David Lee Prater said that Robert Beals, his brother in law, spoke to him around that time and told him that the UAW was the worst Union there was and that if the employees went out on strike Dailey would hire employees off the street Later, Beals told Prater that they did not have to have a union, and that a shop in Jackson had a union and voted it out after 6 months He asked Prater to talk about it in the shop, find out the feelings of the employees, but be tact ful talk to other employees one at a time He advised Prater to talk bad about the Union and try to talk them into voting it out He added that Parma was a dying shop and that no new jobs were coming in Beals came up to Prater again the next day and repeated the same kind of conversation Beals admitted that he had had a conversation with Prater about getting rid of the Union, but he said that Prater had approached him, expressing dissatisfaction with union lies" and threats Later, according to Beals, Prater asked how he could get the Union out Beals contacted Attorney Brannick and the latter advised that the employees be told to get themselves a lawyer and get 50 percent of the employees to back them up Beals said he told Prater about that, but heard nothing further of it I again credit the testimony of the employee witness, David Prater over Beals Prater had no reason to lie about this incident which could have no bearing on his employment prospects At the time shortly after the union victory in the election and before subsequent events could have affected employee solidarity it is un likely that Prater or anyone else was interested in a de certification movement I thus find this incident to con stitute another violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by encouraging employees to abandon their bargaining rep resentative under threats to replace strikers and a lack of new order in the shop D The Sale of Parma After the election on 7 August the Union was certi feed on 15 August On 27 August the Union notified Farmer that Orrin L Converse III had been assigned as the Unions representative for Parma and that he would be in contact with the Company to set up negotiating meetings Converse himself wrote to Farmer under the date of 4 September asking for certain information on the employees and benefits in the shop Converse indicated that he was looking forward to meeting with Farmer and his representatives to discuss a collective bargaining agreement On 14 September the machinery accounts receivable fixtures, and other assets of Parma were sold to Jackson Industries, Inc a corporation headed by Robert A Puckey The machinery and fixtures were moved out during the weekend immediately following to a location in Jackson, Michigan On 14 September, about 2 30 to 3 30 p in , Farmer called the Parma employees together and read them a prepared notice' 5 stating that Effective today 14 Sep tember 1984, Parma Industries will close and cease doing business The employees were told that their services were no longer needed and the final payments of wages and fringe benefits would be made to them by the fol lowing Wednesday, 19 September 1984 There are several additional matters in this notice that seem to me significant in determining the motives that led the management of Parma to make this decision At the end of the first paragraph the paper that was read by Farmer stated Any questions you might have regarding your termination should be addressed to the Company s termination agent, whose name address and telephone number will be identified to you shortly by mail There is no indication in this record that any such person was ever named or ever communicated with any employees There is no indication in the notice that the business had been sold or that some employees had been or were going to be, offered jobs with a employer or that Farm er s notice was anything different from a simple an nouncement of the termination of Parma s business The last three paragraphs of the notice are quoted here in their entirety so that there will be no question about my using parts of the document out of context You are now directed to pick up any items of personal property which belongs to you [clause de leted in original] and to leave this plant and proper ty You are hereby notified that you are no longer have any right to be on the property of Parma In dustries, and you are also notified that you are to leave the property at this time If you return for any reason you will be a trespasser unless you are invited in writing to return Gentlemen I am sorry that business conditions have forced this closing to occur however these are matters beyond our control I can only end by saying that I hope you will find other jobs that will make you more happy then [sic]' 6 you were here and I wish you every success From the first quoted paragraph it is clear that the Company wanted these people off the premises immedi ately, and not to return under penalties for trespass There is no evidence here of violence or sabotage, except for some unsupported statements by Richard Dailey and there would seem to be no reason for such an arbitrary action In the penultimate paragraph it would appear that the closure was forced by business conditions and that these business conditions are matters beyond [the Company's] control This statement which was the only reason given to the employees for the plant s clos mg and their termination carries the necessary implica tion that the business conditions mentioned were serious by adverse, and that those adverse conditions forced the closure These ostensible reasons are completely at vari ance with the Company s position throughout this hear ing, as we will see below that Parma was sold because 15 Farmer testified that the notice had been prepared by Attorney George Brannick and that he just read it as it had been given to him i s This word should be than rather than then Otherwise the quoted section makes no sense PARMA INDUSTRIES' none of the Dailey family wanted to assume its direction, and that the sale was entirely a voluntary matter The last paragraph, instead of expressing any thanks or appreciation to the employees, some of whom had worked at Parma for periods of up to 20 years, offered them farewell and success with the scolding and churlish admonition that the Company hoped they would find other jobs that will make you more happy than you were here Neither Farmer, who deli%ered these remarks nor Brannick, who wrote them, explained the meaning of this, although both testified here or indicated the reason the Company concluded that the employees were unhap py at Parma I am, therefore, left to draw my own con clusions from the evidence in the record The only logs cal conclusion I can draw from this evidence is that the employees showed their dissatisfaction, or unhappiness with Parma by voting in favor of the Union on 7 August To sum up my conclusions on this 14 September notice, I find that it failed to show any recognition of the employees help in running the business, failed to inform the employees that the business had been sold to a buyer who intended to continue the same operations with the same machines, same supervision, same products, and same customers expressed conclusions inconsistent with the position of Parma in this case on the reasons for the sale, stated inaccurately that the sale was forced by busi ness conditions, treated the employees like thieves or saboteurs in ordering them off the premises, pointed to their union activity as the reason for their discharge, and wished them happier employment elsewhere Before considering the defenses raised by Parma and Wolverine to the allegations that the sale of Parma vio lated Section 8(a)(1) (3), and (5) of the Act I note that the complaint also alleges that Parma and Wolverine closed the plant without prior notification to and bar gaining with the Union that was certified almost a month before the Parma plant closed The Employers do not deny that they did not bargain with the Union over the decision to close the Parma plant nor was the decision purely economic because Dailey made it clear in his tes timony that Parma was founded in order to take advan tage of lower labor costs and in his speech to employees at Parma on 6 August made it plain that higher labor costs would result in the closing of the plant Thus, Re spondents Parma and Wolverine violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by not bargaining about the decision to sell the assets of Parma and close the plant on 14 Septem ber 17 First National Maintenance Corp v NLRB 452 U S 666 (1981) Otis Elevator 269 NLRB 891 (1984) Turning to the defense raised by Respondent to the al legations that the closure of Parma and the termination of its employees were also violations of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act in retaliation for the action of the employees in voting in the Union I note that that defense is not pri 17 The General Counsel continues to move that he be allowed to amend the complaint to add allegations that Respondent Parma and Wol venue further violated the law by not bargaining with the Union about the effects of the plant closing This would in my view be redundant in view of the remedy I am recommending here I will stand by my original decision to deny this motion 101 manly economic as alleged in the dismissal notice read by Farmer on 14 September 1984 Basically the defense is that Parma was established as a satellite or adjunct of Wolverine in 1963, pretty much as I have found, above, in section III, A of this decision This went along until 1983 when Robert Johnson, who had been president and a minority stockholder of Parma, resigned sold his stock back to Wolverine and left At that point, Richard Dailey Sr asked his sons Richard Jr, Dan, and Mark, and his son in law Thomas Way if any of them wanted to take charge of Parma, and none were interested Dailey Sr then assumed the presidency him self, promoting Roger Farmer from a supervisors posi tion to that of vice president and general manager and Beals to the supervisory job vacated by Farmer Dailey testified that he was not happy with this situation,18 and indicated that he started looking around for a buyer for Parma I have some doubts about this uncorroborated testimony by Dailey He gave no substantial reason that mere inconvenience would have impelled him to sell Parma There is no evidence that Parma ever lost money, or that the economic reasons for the establish ment of Parma in 1963 had changed in any way Dailey testified that he notified his lawyer, Brannick and his ac countant, Robert Puckey, of his interest to sell and also a business broker in Lansing, but there is no independent corroboration from anyone or any publication, other than from the participants in this case that Parma was for sale Minutes of the Parma board of directors meetings show no discussion and no vote on whether to offer the Company for sale until Dailey is shown to state at a meeting on 5 June 1984 that discussions on a sale were going on This was at a time after the union campaign had begun There is no independent corroborative evi dence, other than the testimony of Dailey and Puckey and documents allegedly prepared by their lawyers that this sale of Parma s assets was a legitimate sale I have some doubts on this score but there is just not enough evidence to permit me to draw any conclusions other than that the sale was legitimate These contacts with Brannick Puckey and the un named broker in Lansing produced no results There were no offers to buy Parma through 1983 Then some time in 1984, Dailey testified that he was surprised when Robert Puckey said that he was interested in buying Parma Puckey was, and is, a certified public accountant and has practiced that profession in Jackson since 1965 as a principal in an accounting firm The reasons that led him to become involved in this matter were of concern to me at the hearing and remain a concern to me now Puckey is an alert articulate and impressive person obviously highly qualified in his field of accounting His testimony on cash flow problems reflects a broad knowledge of the fiscal side of industry and manufacturing On the other 18 Although he also testified that the business was run by Farmer in much the same way as it had been run by Johnson This is completely inconsistent with the testimony of Johnson and the other testimony of Dailey and casts serious doubt on Dailey s claimed purpose in offering Parma for sale Farmer s testimony makes it clear that he did not know what was going on as far as the business was concerned 102 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hand he readily admitted his lack of knowledge about the hiring, the staffing, and the supervision of people en gaged in industrial processes He indicated no experience in other aspects of operating a manufacturing enterprise such as purchasing, storage, design and engineering mar keting and sales, equipment and plant maintenance, pack aging and shipping and all the other multifarious and interrelated functions involved in an operation such as Parma s In fact, Puckey s testimony reveals only that after he bought the business, his participation was limited to going over monthly production schedules with Farmer and then following the progress of the business through its accounting system 19 Puckey s reasons for wanting to buy the business of Parma and become a manufacturer as well as an account ant are he asserted based on his 10 years as a journey man electrician for General Motors before he got into the accounting business, and based on his rather vague statement that he had always been interested in manufac turing because many clients of his accounting firm20 were manufacturers He stated that for these reasons, he had been looking for a manufacturing company for a long time, and he knew that Parma had lost its manager (Johnson) some time ago He then approached Dailey about buying Parma while he was at Wolverine doing a fiscal yearend audit in April 1984 Dailey was unable to pin down the time of this ap proach by Puckey He was asked by Jackson s counsel whether the conversation in which Puckey expressed his interest in Parma was in February March, or April 1984, and he answered That is correct Attempts to elicit a more definite time period were not successful 21 but Dailey did say that the approach was made at Parma rather than at Wolverine The testimony by Dailey and Puckey on their negotia tions for the sale of Parma was marked by failure of memory by inconsistency and on Dailey s part by an incoherence so palpable that his own counsel tried to re habilitate him on the ground that he was very nervous In sum however I cannot find that the sale was finally agreed to in late May or early June as Dailey said at one point or maybe June sometime at another point in his testimony or sometime earlier than 17 September or July as Puckey stated Both Dailey and Puckey are business men of long experience Both have survived in difficult endeavors through difficult times and in a difficult part of the country Puckey as a professional accountant of long standing must recognize the elementary necessity of making and keeping records of business transactions Yet here there are no notes no memoranda, no drafts or no testimony from lawyers appraisers consultants or anyone about these negotiations All this strikes me as unusual, in Puckey s case particu larly because at the end of the transaction he bound himself and his partner John Gruel, to a personal as well as a corporate obligation to repay $104 000 at 12 percent to Parma Industries 22 The General Counsel here has established a prima facie case based on the fact that Parma was a going buss ness established and maintained to take advantage of geographically low wages rates, on Parma s actions during the union campaign, the threats by Supervisors Beals and Sutton during the election campaign to the effect that the plant would close if the Union came in, the speech of 6 August by Dailey to the same effect, and the testimony I have just reviewed showing that the sale of Parma s assets was arranged in a muddled precipitate, and unbusinesslike way, that the sale itself was arranged and consummated not as a leg timate business transac tion but as a method to permit Parma and Wolverine to punish Parma s employees for their union activities and to avoid bargaining with the Union Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980) The defenses raised by the Respondents to the prima facie evidence adduced by the General Counsel served to reinforce rather than to damage the General Counsel s allegations Therefore, I find that the sale of Parma s assets to Jackson on or about 17 September 1984 was made in retaliation for the employees votes on 7 August in favor of the Union and, further to avoid bargaining with the Union all in violation of Section 8(a)(1) (3), and (5) of the Act E The Successorship Issue Having decided to buy the equipment fixtures mer chandise and accounts receivable of Parma Puckey was faced with the problems of finding a place from which to conduct the business a name and style under which to do business and a work force to make the products on which the business was to be based Puckey consulted a lawyer 23 found that the name Jackson Industries was not already being used and chose that name for his cor poration He also found a location in a part of a plant in Jackson formerly occupied by a company called Yard man referred to as the Yardman plant or the Yardman building and hired a firm of riggers to move the heavy machinery 24 Then, in August,25 according to Puckey 19 Puckey testified that he approved the hiring of additional employ ees including someone described as an office person but there is no evidence that any of the engineering marketing sales maintenance or packaging functions were done by Puckey s new company From Puck ey s testimony it is impossible to determine even whether the payroll hitherto made up by Wolverine for Parma was not handled in the same way for Jackson Industries or that all the engineering sales purchasing and other functions previously done by Wolverine for Parma did not continue uninterrupted for Jackson 20 Including of course Wolverine and Parma 21 Both by the General Counsel and myself I cannot help drawing the conclusion from Dailey s evasions of questions about the time of his origi nal discussions with Puckey that those discussions were later than the time indicated by Puckey 22 I am also puzzled by the fact that Parma s stockholders and direc tors voted allegedly on 14 September 1984 to dissolve and liquidate the corporation At this time according to the evidence here Parma still owned its real estate in Parma Michigan as well as the proceeds from the $104 000 note from Jackson guaranteed personally by Puckey and Gruel 25 Not one of these involved here 24 Puckey testified that the search for a building took some time but he did not say how long or what the dates were He did say that he signed the lease a couple of weeks before the sale of Parma s assets 25 Puckey also described this meeting as sometime in April when he would have been working on Chambers tax returns PARMA INDUSTRIES 103 he went to see George Chambers, another accounting client and a longtime acquaintance, who was president of L R P D , a company engaged in the business of fur rushing employees on a permanent basis 26 Puckey tests fled that he mentioned to Chambers at the August meet ing that he was going to operate this business and that he needed Farmer and Beals to run the operation Chain bers, on the other hand, recalled an August meeting as only involving some preliminary questions by Puckey, an informational discussion, and that there was no men tion at that time of Parma, Wolverine, or any specific people The next thing that Chambers recalled was a meeting early in the second week of September Puckey stopped by Chambers office and told Chambers that he was really serious about having Chambers supply him with employees Still, according to Chambers, Puckey did not discuss neither Parma nor any of the details of the arrangements with which he was involved Then, on Thursday, 13 September, Puckey called and told him he needed Beals and Farmer to go to work in the Yardman building by the first of the following week Chambers vaguely remembered another meeting with Puckey in that second week of September at which Dailey was present, but he was unable to recall any details 27 At this 13 September meeting Puckey and Chambers agreed that Chambers would supply and pay the supervisors and em ployees for Puckey s new operation at the Yardman building Beals was already aware of what was going on He had talked to Puckey on the previous Saturday at Parma, when Puckey told him that he might buy the business Puckey and Beals then went to see the new location in the Yardman building On 13 September Chambers called Beals down to his office Chambers told him that he could have a job if he was interested that it would be the same job he had and it would begin the following Monday Chambers also asked Beals if he had any sug gestions for people to report the following week Beals suggested that Chambers use Les Clark Louis Sutton, Dan Walling, Ken Smith, and Arlo England Roger Farmer had been on vacation during that second week of September I have already noted Farm er s anomalous position as the executive vice president and general manager of Parma who knew nothing about the sale of the business until his return from vacation on 14 September Farmer was told on that same day to con tact Chambers which he did He was then hired as the manager of the Jackson operation Louis Sutton testified that when he reported at Parma on the second shift the afternoon of 14 September there wasn t nobody there Sutton qualified this by adding that Farmer and Beals were there, but apparently there was no conversation between these supervisors about the closing or anything else 28 Sutton then received a tele phone call from Chambers the next morning He met with Chambers that day and was hired to work for Chambers at Jackson Beals, Puckey and Farmer worked with the riggers hired by Puckey to move machines presses and other equipment from Parma to Jackson s location in the Yard man plant 29 On Monday morning, 17 September, Jackson was in business at the Yardman building producing parts for Wolverine Besides Farmer and Beals,30 the employees running the machines were Clark, Walling, Smith, and John Gage 31 England reported on Tuesday, 18 Septem ber, along with another employee who had not worked for Parma By the end of that week, Jackson had 12 em ployees, not counting Farmer, Beals, and Sutton and, by the end of October, there were 16 production employees The parties stipulated that beginning on 17 September, Jackson continued to produce the same products, for Wolverine and other customers of Parma, using the same machinery and the same methods with the same rates of pay for former Parma employees, and under the same su pervision as Parma The distinction between the Parma and Jackson operations was in the identity of the em ployees when a representative complement of workers was present on the job Although the Jackson operation started with Clark Walling, Smith and Gage, all former Parma employees with England, another Parma employ ee reporting on 18 September, there were no other former Parma employees hired By the end of that first week of operation at Jackson, only 4 or possibly 5 em ployees if Gage is counted out of 12 production employ ees were former Parma employees Under these facts it would not appear that Jackson was a successor employer to Parma, and obliged to rec ognize and bargain with the Union NLRB v Burns Secu rity Services, 406 U S 272 (1972) The General Counsel however alleges that the fact that only a few former Parma employees were hired and failed to constitute a majority of the representative complement of employees at Jackson was the result of a conscious discriminatory scheme of hiring deliberately designed to keep the number of Parma employees a minority and thereby defeat Jackson s statutory duty to bargain with the Union There are two aspects to this argument First the question of why only four rank and file former Parma 26 L R P D stands for Labor Relations and Personnel Development Incorporated In regard to its connection with Jackson L R P D has adopted the name of Jackson People Leasing but I will leave to the com pliance stage of this proceeding anything to do with that Puckey testi fled that he was unfamiliar with personnel matters and did not want to assume the responsibility of the administrative details for the hiring and maintenance of employees in this business 27 Dailey also recalled such a meeting but he placed it earlier in the month of September No one gave any reason as to why Dailey was present at that meeting and no one explained why Dailey was later paying visits to the Yardman location of Jackson Industries as related by Arlo England and Robert Beals 28 More importantly nothing was said about what was going to happen to Sutton This reinforces my observation of Sutton s demeanor while he was testifying and makes it even clearer that his testimony is not credible on critical issues 29 This hasty weekend move together with Puckey s testimony about his hurned search for a building from the basis of my conclusion above that the move was precipitous 30 Sutton reported on the second shift dust as he had at Parma in the afternoon 31 Gage was an inspector and part time acting supervisor He was not included on a list of voters agreed on by the parties for use in the 7 August election The others all voted in the election 104 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees32 were hired by Jackson" at its opening and second, the question of whether the selection process used by Jackson discriminated against former Parma em ployees as the Jackson operation continued On the first issue there seemed to be no logical rea sons Clark Smith, Walling, and England were chosen to staff the Jackson operation beginning on 17 September, and other Parma employees were not The facts here show that Beals, Sutton and Dailey made threats during the union campaign to close or move the Parma oper ation that I have found to have restrained and coerced the Parma employees In Dailey s speech to the assem bled employees on 6 August I have found that he made a special effort to thank the few men who had come for ward and assured him that they were going to vote against the Union At the election on 7 August there were four votes against the Union On the day of the election, according to the testimony of Norman and David Prater, Supervisors Farmer Beals and Sutton and employees Clark and Walling wore T shirts or hats that had been distributed by management and bore the legend Parma 1 On the afternoon Parma closed, after Farmer s an nouncement, Norman returned to his locker to retrieve his coffee cup While he was going by the office he saw Gage, Les Clark, and Ken Smith going into the office Norman testified that Smith was jumping up in the air and swinging his arms like he was just tickled to death The only one of these three employees who testified here was Gage but he was not asked about this incident Arlo England did testify however about his experiences after Parma closed He got his belongings out of his locker after Farmer had told the employees that the plant was closed and Beals came up to him asked if he would be home later that day that someone might want to get hold of him, and said that he could not say any more That evening George Chambers called and told England that he was hiring some people He asked if England would be interested in coming in and seeing him They set up an appointment for Monday morning but England got the address wrong and they met on Tuesday Chain bers said that England had been recommended by Beals and told him that he needed good workers England filled out an application and Chambers told him to go to Jackson where he would see some of the people from Parma 34 England reported to Jackson and commenced doing the same job he had done at Parma The first few weeks that England was at Jackson he saw Richard Dailey Sr frequently in the Jackson plant Dailey always spoke and asked England at one time how he liked the new shop When England replied that the new shop was a lot roomier, Dailey commented that he wondered what the people were doing who were out of work On another occasion when he and England were 32 Because the parties excluded Gage from the list of employees eligi ble to vote in the election at Parma I do not include him as a statutory employee at this stage of the case The employees hired by Jackson then were Clark Walling Smith and England 33 References to Jackson in this section include L R P D as a joint em ployer see sec III F below 34 England was fired by Jackson in November 1984 for reasons not connected with this case talking about a compressor Dailey stated I guess we showed them as The only other direct testimony on the motive for hiring or not hiring Parma employees was in testimony by Ellis Prater, who stopped by Sutton s house on 18 or 19 September while he was looking for work, Prater asked his brother in law whether the latter thought they would hire him at Jackson to which Sutton answered no, that they wont have Union workers On an other occasion Ellis overheard Sutton say to David Prater, I told you if the Union come in, he d shut it down Sutton did not deny these statements and I found Prater to be a credible witness From the testimony of Danny Norman which I have found credible throughout this case I find that the word was passed to all the former Parma employees that union supporters were not wanted at Jackson In this regard I do not credit Chambers involved explanation about his practices in hiring employees for Jackson through the Michigan Employment Security Commission (MESC) His testimony that he assumed if anyone was interested in employment in this community they would sure use MESC as the reason he was not interested in former Parma employees is not only disingenuous for one in volved in the labor relations field in the Jackson area for some years 36 but totally inconsistent with his later state ment that he had no knowledge of Parma Industries and that he was just concerned about getting the best qualified people I possibly could for my client Beyond these specific comments of Chambers on his motives for not hiring the Parma employees, I find that the comments by Dailey Puckey and Beals as well as by Chambers that they knew about the Union and the fact that it had won the election at Parma but that in no way influenced their business decisions to be incredible These people are all in business in Jackson, Michigan not in Singapore or Seoul and I infer and find that they all knew the consequences of union organization and col lective bargaining Certainly Puckey was cognizant about tax problems, both state and Federal, and I cannot and do not believe that he any less than Dailey and Chambers was not aware of and concerned about the union presence at Parma All this self serving and indeed preposterous testimony from Puckey Dailey and Chambers that they knew about the union situation at Parma but that it did not matter is totally incredible Anyone in business in Jackson Michigan knows that a certified union is going to make a lot of difference in a business like Parma that was organized and existed to take advantage of low wage nonunion conditions In view of all this evidence I find that the same fac tors that motivated the sale of Parma, entered into the business decisions of Puckey and Chambers in erecting a scheme to avoid the hiring of former employees of Parma in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and to avoid bargaining with the Union at Jackson Sherwood Trucking Co 270 NLRB 445 (1984) Therefore Jackson 3s Neither Beals nor Dailey denied these incidents and I found Eng land to be a candid and believable witness "Jackson was one of only two clients Chambers had for his person nel supply service at that time so that his practice was somewhat limited PARMA INDUSTRIES and LRPD, having discriminatorily refused to hire former Parma employees because of their union member ship has further violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act Burns supra F Jackson and L R P D There is no question that Jackson and L R P D 37 are a single employer within the meaning of the Act Puck ey s testimony while attempting to avoid any responsi bility for employment decisions, shows that the ultimate authority for hiring wages, and discharge of employees rested in Jackson The agreement between LRPD and Jackson con tams the following provisions 38 5 1 Lessors Responsibilities Lessor shall 5 1 Pay all employees wages and provide any benefits agreed to be provided employees furnished by Lessor to Lessee 5 2 Pay all applicable federal state, municipal and other governmental taxes with respect to the em ployment of such employees, including without lim itation social security, federal and/or state unem ployment compensation taxes 5 3 Maintain payroll records and reports 5 4 Maintain in full force and effect workers compensation insurance in amounts required by law and regulation 5 5 Comply with all applicable statutes rules and regulations of any governments governmental agencies or departments relative to the employment of personnel 6 Lessee s Responsibilities Lessee shall 6 1 Direct the employees in the performance of their job assignments and other matters related thereto and/or related to the daily operation of Les see s business 6 2 Maintain liability insurance for bodily injury and property damage in such a way as to hold the Lessor harmless in case of such injury or property damage 6 3 Maintain reports records and other data nec essary to comply with all applicable State and Fed eral agencies in connection with the operation of the Lessee s business 7 2 Construed in accord with laws of State of Michigan 7 3 Independent Contractor Status Anything to the contrary notwithstanding all employees provid ed hereunder shall be independent contractors as to Lessee and shall remain employees of Lessor Fur ther this Agreement shall not constitute a partner ship between Lessor and Lessee, nor be deemed to create a relationship of principal and agent 7 4 Termination of Employees Lessee shall have the right to designate any employee as unacceptable for any reason whatsoever and such employee shall not thereafter be provided to Lessee hereunder 37 Together with any successors to L R P D whatever name they use 38 L R P D is the lessor and Jackson the lessee in this agreement 105 These provisions make it clear that these two employ ers are acting in concert and that as to the employees both exercise authority to control the wage, hours and working conditions of those employees, US Pipe & Foundry Co, 247 NLRB 139 (1980) THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents Parma and Wolverine and Respondents Jackson and L R P D have engaged in certain unfair labor practices I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and that they take cer tarn affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act As I have found that Parma and Wolverine have re fused to bargain with the Union about the decision to close down Parma s plant I shall order these Respond ents to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union concerning that decision As I have found that Parma and Wolverine unlawfully terminated the majority of their Parma employees on 14 September 1984, and that Jackson and L R P D unlaw fully refused to hire these employees from 17 September 1984 to the present time I will recommend that Jackson and L R P D immediately offer to all the employees of Parma and Wolverine who were terminated on 14 Sep tember 1984, and whose names appear on a list of eligi ble voters agreed to in Case 7-RC-17315 on 2 July 1984 immediate employment to positions at Jackson and L R P D substantially equivalent to those the employees had occupied at Parma and Wolverine without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges that they had enjoyed in their employment at Parma and for all the Respondents jointly and severally to make them whole for any losses of earnings suffered by them as the result of the discrimination against them by payment to them of sums equal to those they would have earned absent the discrimination against them with backpay computed in accordance with the formula in F W Woolworth Co 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and with interest computed in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corp 231 NLRB 651 (1977) Further as I have found that Respondent Jackson and L R P D have violated their obligation to bargain with the Union, I shall recommend that they immediately on request bargain with the Union concerning wages hours and conditions of employment for the employees in a unit consisting of all full time and regular part time production and maintenance employees, including truck drivers employed by Respondents Jackson and L R P D in their facility located in Jackson, Michigan, but exclud ing all office clerical employees, engineering employees, technical employees managerial employees quality con trol employees guards and supervisors as defined in the Act Because the unfair labor practices found are egregious and widespread going to the heart of the collective bar gaining relationship and vitally affecting the livelihood of employees I shall recommend that a broad order issue in this matter, Hickmott Foods, 242 NLRB 1357 (1979), and I shall grant the General Counsels request for a remedial 106 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD visitatorial provision, and shall recommend such in the Order issued hereunder CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Respondents Parma Industries, Inc, Wolverine Metal Specialties Inc, Jackson Industries Inc, and L R P D Inc are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 2 International Union, United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 62 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 The following employees of Respondents constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargain mg within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act 39 All full time and regular part time production and maintenance employees including truck drivers, employed by Respondents Parma and Wolverine at their Parma, Michigan location and by Respond ents Jackson and L R P D at their Jackson Michi gan location , but excluding all office clerical em ployees, engineering employees, technical employ 89 Insofar as the answer filed on behalf of Wolverine denies the appro priateness of this unit that answer is stricken as frivolous and without foundation ees, managerial employees, quality control employ ees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act 4 By interrogating coercing, and threatening their employees, Respondents Parma and Wolverine have vio lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 5 By closing their Parma, Michigan location without bargaining with the Union over the decision to do so Parma and Wolverine have violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act 6 By terminating all of its employees at its Parma lo cation in retaliation for their support of the Union Re spondents Parma and Wolverine have violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act 7 By refusing to hire former Parma employees at their Jackson, Michigan location because of the union activi ties of those employees Respondents Jackson and L R P D have violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act 8 By refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in the appropriate unit set out above Re spondents Jackson and L R P D have violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act 9 The unfair labor practices set forth above affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act [Recommended Order omitted from publication ]